In the instant case, the petitioner ‘X’ who was an Additional District Judge VIII, Gwalior was sexually harassed by Justice ‘A’ who was the Portfolio/Administrative Judge in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against her to the MP High Court and the Transfer Committee approved her transfer from Gwalior to Sidhi. The petitioner made several representations to seek an extension of her tenure in Gwalior on account of her daughter’s education. The petitioner then resigned from her post on 15.07.2014. One such representation was also made to the President of India. The matter was discussed in Ms. X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1137 of 2018]
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for its consideration:
(i) Whether the transfer order of the petitioner was legal?
(ii) Whether the resignation of the petitioner was voluntary or forced upon her due to the circumstances?
Doctrine of Legitimate expectations governs relationship between individual and the public authority. Legitimate Expectation means that a person may have a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by administrative authorities owing to some consistent practice in the past or an express promise made by the concerned authority. According to this doctrine, a public authority can be made accountable in lieu of a legitimate expectation.
The Word “Legitimate Expectation” is not defined by any law in force fashioned by the Court to review the administrative action. Legitimate, or reasonable, expectation may arise from an express promise given on behalf of a public authority or from the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue. The expectation may be based on some statement or undertaking by or on behalf of the public authority which has the duty of taking decision, If the authority has through its officers acted in a way that would make it unfair or inconsistent with good administration for him to be denied such an inquiry.
In the instant case, the Court stressed upon the doctrine of due consideration to legitimate expectations as explained in the decision of Food Corporation of India v. M/S. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries and observed that in light of the Transfer Policy, every Judicial Officer will have a legitimate expectation that such policy will be given due consideration whenever a representation will be made. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant’s perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant.
In the present case court found that the Transfer Committee did not consider the requirements of clause (9) of the Transfer Policy and consequently, the procedure under clause (9) of the Policy was not followed while seeking comments from the District Judge and the Portfolio Judge. The Supreme Court therefore, observed that the transfer order of the petitioner and the rejection of the representations made by her were arbitrary and contrary to the Transfer Policy of 2012. It further observed that the transfer of the petitioner was made solely on the basis of the complaint made by the then District & Session Judge. Moreover, JIC’s observation that Justice ‘A’ had an important role in the transfer order of the petitioner was also noted. Thereafter, the Court dealt with transfer orders backed by the malafide intent of the authority while placing reliance on Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others and Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and Others and held that the transfer order was backed by malice as the same was passed without any due consideration to the Transfer Policy.
The Court held the rejection of the representations made by the petitioner as irrational, unreasonable, and arbitrary for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court reached such a conclusion because the Judge on the Transfer Committee did not consider the annexures attached with the representations and therefore, failed to take note of relevant factors.
With respect to the third issue i.e. whether the resignation tendered by the petitioner was voluntary or forced upon her due to the circumstances, the Court held that the resignation of the petitioner was not voluntary. The Court placed heavy reliance on the decision of Prabha Atri v. State of U.P and Others as the said decision dealt extensively with the undue importance given to the expression ‘with immediate effect’ without understanding the context of the language and the circumstances in which it was written.
The Court observed that the petitioner was not directly forced to resign, but the circumstances were such that the petitioner, out of frustration, took such a step. However, the Court showed reluctance to go further and held that the said resignation was based on coercion on the ground that the same would have an adverse effect on the administration of justice by the Judiciary.
The Court thereafter concluded the case by providing the relief to the petitioner of reinstatement into services as an Additional District & Session Judge on account of the resignation tendered by her as not a voluntary one.
About the author
